IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

D’NANEKAI CARRIGAN-TERRELL,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action 2:12-cv-387 

 Judge Graham

Magistrate Judge King

DOCTOR SILVIA, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §

1983, complaining that she was transferred from the Franklin Pre-Release

Center, where she worked as a porter, to the Ohio Reformatory for Women

without notice, hearing or opportunity to appeal, all in violation of her

right to due process of law. This matter is now before the Court for the

initial screen of the Complaint required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e), 1915A.

Ordinarily, prisoners have no constitutionally protected liberty

interest in being assigned to any particular institution. Olim v.

Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245-46 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215

(1976); Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 235 (1976). “Confinement in any of

the State’s institutions is within the normal limits or range of custody

which the conviction has authorized the State to impose.” Meachum, 427

U.S. at 225. Even if the inmate believes that conditions at the

transferee institution are more onerous, prison officials have the

discretion, under the Constitution, to authorize transfers so long as the 

conditions at the transferee prison do not impose “atypical and

significant hardships on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents

Case: 2:12-cv-00387-JLG-NMK Doc #: 6 Filed: 05/07/12 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
of prison life.” See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). Cf.

Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005)(recognizing an inmate’s liberty

interest in not being transferred to Ohio’s “supermax” institution

without due process of law).

Plaintiff does not allege that conditions at the Ohio Reformatory

for Women give rise to a liberty interest in not being transferred to

that institution. It follows, then, that the Constitution’s due process

clause did not require that plaintiff be given notice, hearing and

opportunity to appeal her transfer.

Because the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can

be granted, it is RECOMMENDED that the action be dismissed.

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and

Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve

on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation, specifically

designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof in

question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C.

§636(b)(1); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections must be filed

within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. F.R.

Civ. P. 72(b). 

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object tothe

Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo

review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the decision of

the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers,

Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walters, 

638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00387-JLG-NMK Doc #: 6 Filed: 05/07/12 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
 s/Norah McCann King 

 Norah McCann King

 United States Magistrate Judge

DATE: May 4, 2012

3

Case: 2:12-cv-00387-JLG-NMK Doc #: 6 Filed: 05/07/12 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Case: 2:12-cv-00387-JLG-NMK Doc #: 6 Filed: 05/07/12 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>